Christianity and Creationism - some clarification

[spudbynight]

Why is a woman unable to do this? How does a pair of **** and the lack of a penis stop a woman acting "in the person of Christ"?

The above doesn't even address the point. You feel the Catholic church has very valid reasons for restricting the role due to gender. Many Catholics disagree with you not to mention non Catholics. The Church prevents women from having a full role within the chruch. Therefore the chruch is sexist. Regardless of the existence or not of a legitimate reason for the discrimination.

Well, answering as a Catholic I am bound by dogma. However this piece here is worth a read and goes into some detail as to why the Church isn't sexist.

But really the Church position is clear.

Women are unable to be priests.

It doesn't teach that it doesn't want female priests - it simply teaches that they are not capable of being priests.

As a man I am not capable of bearing children - does that mean I am not equal to a woman?

Doesn't stop most of them in the UK though. But that is neither here nor there, due to the uneven burden of pregnancy on a woman then the control of conception has a much larger impact on a woman than a man. After my wife's pregnancy I am even more pro-choice than I was prior to it having seen first hand some of the health implications.

I am not stopping you from living your life in any way that you so choose. It doesn't mean that contraception has a bearing on sexual equality. Your wife on the other hand as a Catholic should try to adhere to the teaching of the Church.

Do you actually believe that or are you just trotting out the standard lines? How is the right to marry a woman of any use whatsoever to a homosexual man?

I believe that, and I believe that people sin. I am not perfect by any stretch. I personally don't have too much of an issue with gay civil partnerships, I have a very strong objection to gay marriage.

Why did the lobby against Civil Gay marriages being allowed when it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Church being a completely secular event?

I believe that "the lobby" was pretty clear at the time. Certainly the Catholic Church believes that gay partnerships erode the value placed on the family.

Not much of a problem for us heterosexuals though is it? That is a pretty easy sin for me to avoid. I also find it distasteful that the Catholic Church would prefer children to remain in care rather than go to a loving home due to the sexual orientation of the parents.

The Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are wrong. Do you really expect them to endorse the adoption of a child by parents who are doing wrong? Really? You might not agree with them but at least understand them. They really can't take any other position.

I shall let my wife know she is a heretic (and a sinner), seems awfully judgemental of you though....

I am not judging just stating fact. I am sure your wife is lovely and I am most certainly not judging her - that isn't my place.

I am aware that there are members of the Catholic Church who would like to see women ordained. Those people are either (a) ignorant of their own religion or (b) heretics.

The Churches position is that women can not be priests - that is an infallible dogma. It can not be changed. If your wife is aware of this and still rejects it then she is committing the sin of heresy. This is a very grave sin indeed and carries the sanction of excommunication. I don't want to sound too dramatic on this but essentially the Church has rules and if you want to stay in the Church you have to follow the rules. She is not bound to the Church and can follow the path to apostasy if she chooses.

 

[elmarko]

I was not challenging your knowledge of the bible I was challenging you for saying this:



When the statement was correct and you were wrong.

I was further demonstrating again you seem willing to be critical of the faults in others that you have in abundance yourself. In case you have never read Nietzsche I'll give you the exact quote:

Please,

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

Day 2: Heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

Day 6: Land animals and people.

Are you saying that day 4 is not a little too late?.

The sun/moon stars after the vegetables? - do you know what photosynthesis is? (assuming the light is not the sun as you put in your last point).

Keep on coming kid, perhaps one day you will luck onto a reasonable response, but this is starting to get embarrassing for you.

 

[spudbynight]

You then quote out of context - how about we take a sentence from Dawkins out of context "God created the universe". That's in The God Delusion.

This just made my day and brought such a smile to my face.

 

[Nitefly]

Actually, I've going to change what I said because I argued something and think I concluded something slightly different.

Evolution does not deal with the creation of life - this remains an utter mystery that I am doubtful we will ever solve. In this sense, could a god have created life and evolution could have proceeded without the influence of god. In this sense, I believe that god can be compatible with evolution. There are many examples of this within science.

However, I am advocating that it is not compatible to say that a god influences the process of evolution (as we understand it) because to do so is unwarranted and not needed. There is no god in the theory of evolution. The theory as it stands is falsifiable. To add it in is a pointless 'expansion pack' (as I put it earlier) that science neither looks towards, acknowledges or considers. It works fine without it just as sitting on my chair works perfectly fine without the influence of god - to say otherwise about my chair reduces observation and theorising to nothing. Therefore I don't say it's compatible.

That was my point, sorry for the misleading statements above.

It's compatabile in the sense science does not give evidence against a deity or even scriptures. Therefore they are not mutually exclusive.

This is said in relation to God guiding evolution (see above) - the theory doesn't require it, contemplate it or suggest it.

It's not mutually exclusive you are quite right, but this is in the same sense that an apple is not mutually exclusive to an orange. No it technically isn't, but I'd like to advocate my right that it's a stupid statement and to answer a resounding 'no!' to any such affirmation

 

[spudbynight]

I would argue quite strongly that it does.

Not because it literally goes against anything that evolution explains, but because it just adds this unnecessary faith based 'expansion pack' to evolution that isn't required, warranted or justified. If anything I think it's backwards reasoning. It's fitting faith around something else until you can make evolution work with god. Evolution and science doesn't work that way.

We have got to the point on this forum where creating the world in 6/7 days is rendered meaningless because 'aha well a day is not a day is might actually be longer!', which to me is a pretty desperate attempt at getting the pieces of the puzzle to fit together. Heck, using that reasoning you can pretty much say anything is anything and reduce any debate to the most fruitless of woolly discussion.

The last time I entered into such a discussion it came into a climax when we were discussing whether mutation of DNA was truly random or influenced by god. We observe that every so often (appalling layman speak considering the subject) a mutation occurs across DNA at different rates depending on the usefulness of a gene allele (molecular clock and that jazz). We cannot predict which base pair will be subject to that so we label that as random and the phenotype will be beneficial, neutral or deleterious. The element of randomness creates a variety of phenotypes that evolution non-randomly selects for (personal pet peeve of mine is when people say evolution is random, it most certainly isn't). So far, so good.

So why introduce this element that god guides the mutations? It's just a totally needless component, it works perfectly fine without it. We observe it is random, we theorise that it is random, which is falsifiable. Being falsifiable, we cannot say that it is not random with any weight, but we do not know why the purpose is of it being random.

This second question is silly and totally redundant - you can apply it to anything. Why is the sea blue, why do I get hungry, why do planes fly, why do we sit on chairs - you can answer each of these with 'because god influenced it' and despite there is no way of proving you wrong, you end up rendering the entire point of observation and theorising totally pointless - we know very clearly the answer to these questions without this god element.

Is it compatible with science that the sea is blue 'because god influenced it'? Is it compatible with science that I get hungry 'because god influences it'? Is it compatible with science that planes fly 'because god influences it'? I would answer these all with a resounding 'no' because it's like asking if my computer is compatible with an unnecessary slice of corned beef.

Actually, I can rest this slice of corned beef on my laptop, so I guess it is after all. Maybe I was wrong....

Did you read all of the Pope Benedict XVI's words that Castiel quoted earlier?

 

[Nitefly]

Did you read all of the Pope Benedict XVI's words that Castiel quoted earlier?

Admittedly and unsurprisingly no. It was a beast.

Read my post above for a restatement of what I meant.

 

[Glaucus]

However, I am advocating that it is not compatible to say that a god influences the process of evolution (as we understand it) because to do so is unwarranted and not needed. There is no god in the theory of evolution. The theory as it stands is falsifiable. To add it in is a pointless 'expansion pack' (as I put it earlier) that science neither looks towards, acknowledges or considers. It works fine without it just as sitting on my chair works perfectly fine without the influence of god - to say otherwise about my chair reduces observation and theorising to nothing. Therefore I don't say it's compatible.

Just because it's not need doesn't mean it's not right. Science only cares about the simplist model to fit the data, not the actual method. So that's a pretty silly statement.
Is everything you do the simplist it could ever be?

 

[spudbynight]

Admittedly and unsurprisingly no. It was a beast.

Read my post above for a restatement of what I meant.

I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on it. It explains how compatible and in fact complimentary science and religion are. It does so far better than I or anyone else* on this thread could hope to.




*Apart of course from Castiel

 

[Nitefly]

Just because it's not need doesn't mean it's not right. Science only cares about the simplist model to fit the data, not the actual method. So that's a pretty silly statement.
Is everything you do the simplist it could ever be?

I don't think my statement is silly at all.

I think that's about as far as this is going to go since we've clearly reached the root of our disagreement

 

[Nitefly]

I would be genuinely interested in your thoughts on it. It explains how compatible and in fact complimentary science and religion are. It does so far better than I or anyone else* on this thread could hope to.




*Apart of course from Castiel

I'll give it a read later if I have some time.

 

[spudbynight]

Just because it's not need doesn't mean it's not right. Science only cares about the simplist model to fit the data, not the actual method. So that's a pretty silly statement.
Is everything you do the simplist it could ever be?

Indeed science and religion are looking for different things.

 

[elmarko]

Actually, I've going to change what I said because I argued something and think I concluded something slightly different.

Evolution does not deal with the creation of life - this remains an utter mystery that I am doubtful we will ever solve. In this sense, could a god have created life and evolution could have proceeded without the influence of god. In this sense, I believe that god can be compatible with evolution. There are many examples of this within science.

However, I am advocating that it is not compatible to say that a god influences the process of evolution (as we understand it) because to do so is unwarranted and not needed. There is no god in the theory of evolution. The theory as it stands is falsifiable. To add it in is a pointless 'expansion pack' (as I put it earlier) that science neither looks towards, acknowledges or considers. It works fine without it just as sitting on my chair works perfectly fine without the influence of god - to say otherwise about my chair reduces observation and theorising to nothing. Therefore I don't say it's compatible.

That was my point, sorry for the misleading statements above.


This is said in relation to God guiding evolution (see above) - the theory doesn't require it, contemplate it or suggest it.

It's not mutually exclusive you are quite right, but this is in the same sense that an apple is not mutually exclusive to an orange. No it technically isn't, but I'd like to advocate my right that it's a stupid statement and to answer a resounding 'no!' to any such affirmation

While I agree, that evolution does not specifically disprove the concept of a god - it's worth noting that evolution does not disprove that a fairy didn't wave a wand & create life.

I'm happy with simply not knowing something, I don't claim to have possession of some greater knowledge or know things I objectively can't.

When people say "god made the earth", or "I know god exists", they are claiming they are holding knowledge they do not possess.

What get's my goat is when I have to listen to people walk around pretending to be humble, then in the next breath they are the creation of a perfect god & they have a personal relationship with this creator - that the entire universe has them in mind.

The amount of narcissism required to believe that kind of thing makes my head spin.

What's wrong with us just being here, we are animals & there is no point to life.

At least the theory above explains why the world is as it is.

 

[Xordium]

Please,

Day 1: The heavens, the earth, light and darkness.

Day 2: Heaven

Day 3: Dry land, the seas, and vegetation.

Day 4: The sun, the moon and the stars.

Day 5: Living creatures in the water, birds in the air.

Day 6: Land animals and people.

Are you saying that day 4 is not a little too late?.

The sun/moon stars after the vegetables? - do you know what photosynthesis is? (assuming the light is not the sun as you put in your last point).

Keep on coming kid, perhaps one day you will luck onto a reasonable response, but this is starting to get embarrassing for you.

Deflection. That is not what we were discussing.

I also do not agree with that ordering like I do not agree with what you said here:

It still says god created light before the sun - clearly written by somebody who had no understanding of how the universe actually is.

to which I then said this:

Right so there was no light emitted in the universe anywhere until clouds of hydrogen coalesced into stars. Right ...

So rather than deflecting this issue away can we have from you a categorical answer.

When you said the below: were you wrong? And in making such an error whilst being critical of others could that be seen as being a little bit hypocritical.

It still says god created light before the sun - clearly written by somebody who had no understanding of how the universe actually is.

 

[Glaucus]

I don't think my statement is silly at all.

I think that's about as far as this is going to go since we've clearly reached the root of our disagreement

Of course it is, even science knows its bounds, but you seemingly don't.

 

[spudbynight]

While I agree, that evolution does not specifically disprove the concept of a god - it's worth noting that evolution does not disprove that a fairy didn't wave a wand & create life.

I'm happy with simply not knowing something, I don't claim to have possession of some greater knowledge or know things I objectively can't.

When people say "god made the earth", or "I know god exists", they are claiming they are holding knowledge they do not possess.

What get's my goat is when I have to listen to people walk around pretending to be humble, then in the next breath they are the creation of a perfect god & they have a personal relationship with this creator - that the entire universe has them in mind.

The amount of narcissism required to believe that kind of thing makes my head spin.

What's wrong with us just being here, we are animals & there is no point to life.

At least the theory above explains why the world is as it is.

I know God exists, I have felt his presence. Can you prove otherwise?

 

[elmarko]

Deflection. That is not what we were discussing.

I also do not agree with that ordering like I do not agree with what you said here:



to which I then said this:



So rather than deflecting this issue away can we have from you a categorical answer.

When you said the below: were you wrong? And in making such an error whilst being critical of others could that be seen as being a little bit hypocritical.

Well, it seems you are really getting desperate.

The overarching point was the biblical account of creation is flawed.

I was already aware that light existed before the creation of suns, but you and I both know that's not what was meant.

How about the concept of creating vegetation before the moon, sun?.

This one I can't wait to hear, keep on coming kid - some day you will have a decent reply (I hope).

 

[spudbynight]

Well, it seems you are really getting desperate.

The overarching point was the biblical account of creation is flawed.

I was already aware that light existed before the creation of suns, but you and I both know that's not what was meant.

How about the concept of creating vegetation before the moon, sun?.

This one I can't wait to hear, keep on coming kid - some day you will have a decent reply (I hope).

Do you know what an allegory is?

 

[Xordium]

I know God exists, I have felt his presence. Can you prove otherwise?

Of course I could not but I could show the same EEG waveform changes for a schizophrenic patient suffering delusions or a child with clinically diagnosed ADHD.

 

[elmarko]

I know God exists, I have felt his presence. Can you prove otherwise?

I think it's more likely you are schizophrenic than that you felt gods presence.

We already know the human mind is prone to hearing/seeing things, or a total breakdown.

We could objectively prove that.

 

[spudbynight]

Of course I could not but I could show the same EEG waveform changes for a schizophrenic patient suffering delusions or a child with clinically diagnosed ADHD.

You have some sort of proof to back up your claim that when I have felt God's presence I would show "the same EEG waveform changes for a schizophrenic patient suffering delusions or a child with clinically diagnosed ADHD."?